On 11/03/14 10:50, Colin Watson wrote: > "Distribution: unstable". Whoops. It is far too easy to make > this mistake with sbuild if you're not quite paying absolutely > perfect attention. My apologies ...
On the Lintian side of things, I attached a patch to <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=542747> in 2010 and am still waiting for comments. My patch just looks for Distribution=unstable, Changes=experimental because that's the most annoying case ("I uploaded a version that wasn't ready and now I have to use an epoch to roll it back"). On the other bug, Thorsten said: > a) Distribution=unstable, Changes=experimental b) > Distribution=experimental, Changes=unstable c) Distribution=*, > Changes=UNRELEASED > > All other mismatch cases should probably be a W, but for these > three, I think not just an E but an autoreject could, maybe, be > justified. which I think is also reasonable. Russ said > I think we only want to do this check if the first line of the > Changes file says UNRELEASED, since there are valid use cases for a > mismatch otherwise. but I don't know what those valid use-cases are. BinNMUs in testing for a package uploaded to experimental, possibly? Anything else? On the sbuild side: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=529281 tl;dr: extensive discussion of why this mistake is easy to make and why sbuild can't trivially fix it; Raphael Hertzog suggests making "sbuild foo_source.changes" do the right thing; Thorsten Glaser suggests lintian autorejects for certain particularly bad and likely combinations; Roger Leigh points out that just "sbuild" with no .dsc file will now do the right thing. Regards, S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/531ef1a5.2010...@debian.org
